More sector-friendly leadership of the Office for Students (OfS) is not being seen as a quick fix to the many issues the English regulator has faced, with leaders pushing for ¡°fundamental change¡± rather than the evolution promised.

News that the outgoing vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent University, Edward Peck, has been endorsed by MPs?as the new OfS chair?has generally been welcomed by universities, but concerns remain about the strategic direction of the organisation.

Boasting a background in university leadership and a string of governmental appointments, Peck ¨C a former NHS manager who has most recently been the government¡¯s student support champion ¨C is a stark contrast to his predecessor as permanent chair, James Wharton, a Conservative peer who was criticised for being too close to government.

Peck potentially faces the opposite criticism ¨C of being too close to universities ¨C but was at pains to?stress his independence?at a House of Commons Education Select Committee hearing, promising to prioritise the interests of students over institutions.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°Edward brings that understanding of the sector, but he is also clearly independent,¡± said Steve West, the vice-chancellor of the University of the West of England. ¡°He has good experience of chairing, he understands ministers and working with civil servants.

¡°My concern with purely political appointments is that the political whip has a very heavy influence and I¡¯m not sure that is a good thing.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°The regulator needs to be independent of the sector and government. If it is not, then it is not going to do the job we really want it to do.¡±

If confirmed in post, Peck would join the OfS as it finalises its strategy up to 2030, a document that, when published late last year, was billed as a ¡°bold and urgent agenda for change¡±.

In responses to a consultation held on the strategy, organisations including Universities UK and the Russell Group warned over the possibility of expanding regulatory reach; repeating an often-raised concern since the watchdog¡¯s inception.

Peck has signalled he feels the OfS could look again at prioritisation of?its work but has generally outlined an evolutionary, not revolutionary approach, said Brooke Storer-Church, the chief executive of GuildHE and a former head of skills at the OfS.

¡°It seems he thinks the OfS has done a pretty good job and can just improve what it is doing rather than fundamentally changing its structure or approach to regulation,¡± she said.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°But now is the time to be bold and think about whether the regulatory instruments we have can be more effective in delivering the sector we know we need to have going forward. I don¡¯t think tinkering around the edges is going to do that.¡±

Storer-Church said the system as currently designed pushes homogeneity and dissuades collaboration between institutions, areas Peck could address by working with government.

West, who was on the OfS board at its inception in 2018, said the regulator needed to be ¡°really clear¡± about what its scope is and what it ¡°can and cannot influence¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

On the key issue of university finances ¨C which Peck has said should generally be a matter for institutions to sort out on their own ¨C the OfS has ¡°no real ability to help in that space¡±, said West, who stressed that the fundamental role for the regulator was to keep an overview of institutions¡¯ positions and future plans in order to protect students¡¯ interests.

The appointment of Peck was indicative of the OfS¡¯ desire to shift the tone of its engagement with universities, said Chris Millward, professor of practice in education policy at the University of Birmingham and a former director of fair access and participation at the OfS.?

It was also already considering how to shift its focus to a core group of issues most relevant to students and the taxpayer, he added. But a key challenge for the new chair will be in translating these high-level priorities into real changes in the way it works.

Peck will also have to answer a key strategic question, said Millward, of how much the regulator should be involved in other key government agendas not directly related to this core work, such as its industrial strategy, public sector reform, defence investment and skills priorities; all of which will involve universities in various forms.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com